Comments: Bill Landis
II.C. Can we develop a process ...
- It seems to me that there are some requests for review/comments that
TSDS must comment on (possibly things that fall into categories
1-4 in Rob Spindler's matrix, assuming this works as a way of
categorizing the kinds of requests TSDS gets?). In these cases no group
decision is needed. For things that fall into categories 5-6, when
something is proposed to TSDS maybe there should be a majority-rules vote
on whether or not to tackle it or decline? If a formal request is
submitted and TSDS members decline it, the chair would be responsible for
responding to whoever sent the request. Something like this might at
least insure buy in by at least a simple majority of TSDS members for
unofficial/informal reviews undertaken by the subcommittee.
- We need a process that will allow us to undertake a review and get
comments out in roughly 2-4 weeks.
- Part of designing a more streamlined process with a tighter
turnaround, IMHO, is
spreading the responsibility for coordinating reviews and comments among
all subcommittee members. This ought to alleviate the burden that
repeatedly seems to fall on just a couple of
people, which is often the cause of delays in getting comments out in a
timely manner to those who have requested them.
- Having a process that explicitly lays out expectations of how TSDS
responsibilities will be divided among subcommittee members ought to let
new TSDS members know what they're getting in to and also help alleviate
fears that carrying out TSDS responsibilities will be an all-consuming
task for any individual.
- With the 6 TSDS members and, if they're interested, the ex officio
members, it seems to me that we have enough people power to specify
two people to coordinate & be primary point people for each review we
undertake. This shouldn't unduly burden any individuals in the TSDS
membership. It also seems like it might be a better way to facilitate
discussion on a listserv or some other communications venue to draw out
others' concerns and opinions. This would also ensure some minimal amount
of diversity of opinion in TSDS comments.
- Some explicit review planning/coordination process seems like it
will go a long way toward making sure that duplication of effort doesn't
happen unless it is for something really important for which we want to
expend the extra effort of having both memberships participate in a
- I'm still unclear about when and if we ever really need a formal
TSDS vote to send off a review? Rob's matrix ought to help us clarify if
and when a vote is required. This matrix would also help us to pigeonhole
each review in a way that makes it clear what we have to do in order to
discharge our responsibilities as TSDS members.